for a president to never met someone he did not like, he had a new one that he promised to own. the longest government shutdown ever. john berman here in for anderson. in a few hours is what donald trump will be presiding over. this is the mantle he told

schumer and pelosi that he'll take up. he actually said that yesterday and the bucks stopped for everybody, as in the dollars dried out for 800,000 workers. no one is doing much at the moment to actually end this. washington is being consumed by the question of president trump would for better or worse really truly pick up the mantle by declaring a national emergency and take the money on the border wall. he's been flirting with the idea for days now. today he says not quite yet. >> i will tell you why. it is the easy way out. but congress should do this. this is too simple. it is too basic. >> and, congress should do this. if they can't do it, if at some point they just cannot do it, this 15-minute meeting, if they

can't do it, i will declare a national emergency. >> certainly not closing the door on it but it is a bit of a change when we left it last night. the legal ground work for emergency declaration including using the word crisis over and over again and every public opportunity. as for the president, he seems ready to pull the trigger if not immediately but certainly soon. >> i have the absolutely right to declare a national emergency. i have not done it yet. i may do it. if this does not work out probably i will do it. i would almost say definitely. >> that almost definitely emergency seemed to morph into maybe possibly one at a few points in time of how he's painting the border situation just this morning on twitter. he wrote i just got back to a far worse situation where anyone would understand an invasion. the president tweeted that

following his thursday trip to mcallen, texas. quote, "i have been there numerous times, pelosi and schumer don't know how dangerous it is." is it one of those if i don't get what i want emergencies? just a reminder, an unfor seen combination of circumstances or results of state calls for immediate action. the president seems to say it is even as he's calling on others and not him dealing with it. there is nothing outlandish of what the lawmakers are doing. however, the president now seems to be trying to have it both ways, telling democrats to do their jobs but threaten to go around congress entirely if they

don't deliver what he wants which i suppose makes it a crisis, a constitutional crisis but not an emergency. on top of all that is where the president may try to get the money after declaring a crisis that critics call a discretionary emergency. as we and others have been reporting, the administration is exploring the possibility if funding the wall using the money already allocated from recovery from real undeniable and non controversial. money for rebuilding puerto rico after hurricane marc maria. to help rebuild the very real disaster or national emergencies that you see there on your screen. the president is eyeing money for that to pay for the wall which may or may not be an emergency or the answer to the crisis which in turn may or may not truly be a crisis. some of this as we said is debatable. we'll have that debate.

what's beyond dispute is that there is really an emergency unfolding as we speak as the mortgage comes due, the heating bills come, the groceries running low. what assumed to be the longest government shutdown drags on. more now from the white house, cnn's jim acosta is there for us tonight. what's going on there tonight? >> reporter: not a whole lot, john, over here at the white house they're insisting they're doing everything they can as possible to get this government opened. the president says it is up to democrats to come back to the negotiation table. we saw the president today talking about federal employees without any pay this weekend. it took around 20 or 30 minutes of the president talking early this afternoon, i finally asked the president, what was the message to federal employees. he appreciate what they are

doing and he essentially expresses appreciation for hanging in there but at the same time he repeated this rather dubious claims that a lot of federal employees support what he's doing, shutting down the government in order to get funding on the wall. listen democrats can call the wall peaches if they want to. just give me money for the wall. the president is comments about emergency but not ruling it out. >> he's not john. >> he did say there is a chance that he could declare a national emergency. essentially he's back to where he was earlier this week threatening to declare a national emergency down the border. we have an emergency down in the border without pulling this trigger. the one wrinkle is that he's essentially saying i know this is going to get challenging in the courts. he was saying it is likely to get kicked back in the ninth

circuit report of appeals. the debate being existed going back to the travel and so on. he says ultimately he hopes to succeed in the supreme court. it was interesting to hear the president say today in the context of whether or not he should declare a national emergency. he does seem to understand it would get tied up in the court and going down that route as well. so he seems to be running out of options. that's why he was once again trying to pay the situation down the border at the crisis. he once again said that were the united states is under attack down at the border and when all the facts do say otherwise. >> are there any plans at this point of the president or members of congress for this matter to work on this over the weekend? >> well, we don't expect a whole lot of activities on that front. the senate adjourned, they went home and a lot of members of congress went back. we do think over the weekend there will be phone calls going

on mulvaney. you saw lindsey graham, the president's most prominent republican supporter, advocating that the president to declare a national emergency. even after lindsey graham put out that tweet, the president did fnot go down that road. the president does not seem to have a viable option they're looking to get that wall down on the border, john. >> 800,000 workers got zero on their paychecks today. jim acosta, thank you so much for being with us. he spoke with us earlier this morning. congressman, the president is shifting his tone today saying right now he's not ready to declare a national emergency, does it ease your concerns at all? >> no, not at all. this is a guy that has five

different opinions from the morning and the next day. he shifts back and forth. he's not consistent. he is going to declare a national emergency and build the wall. no. we are not going to let it happen. he's not going to go and do that. there will be a heavy price to be if he tries to do it. >> i understand if the president does decide to do it, you think he will, you have legislation prepared to stop him. how does this legislation work? does it go to his power to declare a national emergency or more target than that? my legislation be much more targeted and goes to authority that may exists today for the president to declare a national emergency and then go after the money that congress already authorized and appropriated for civil works across the united states. these are levys and airports and operations, things of that sort. we repeal that section of the

law. >> he could not get the money. he could declare the emergency but could not get money for it. >> i would expect others to pass legislation or attempt to that would curtail the ability of the president declaring a national emergency. it is a major problem for our civil rights. >> we'll be challenged in the courts. when the president does talk about taking money from disaster relief funding and that's under consideration right now. can you explain what impact that would have on your district? >> terribly serious. the disaster recovery money that was allocated last spring in the appropriation process is absolutely necessary to show up the levies in the sacramento region. for one of our communities that has 35 foot levies all around it within moment of the break of the levies, that community is n

inundated. >> you were able to get some of documents listed as it is reviewed by the administration and where it is going after this funding? >> absolutely. it is publicly available. on the army core website, there is all of the projects that the 2018 emergency appropriations for disaster recovery would be used for. they are laid out there. most of these projects are going to go to bid and contract over the next few months. all of those are subject to the presidential wins. we know that thaspecifically targeted where the project of california of $2.5 billion as well as puerto rico. >> congressman what's your message to the 800,000 people

who did not get paid today. government workers who had a zero or something similar to that on their paychecks and given there is no negotiations as we speak to end the shutdown? >> we are trying. we have been trying since democrats came into power. that night we pass legislation that would reopen the government, the senate is sitting there, i suppose rating to hatch. the ball is in the senate's court. the president says he'll veto it. there is where the problem lies right there. we are willing to continue to discuss this matter about how to wisely and appropriately and using the taxpayer money to secure the southern border. >> congressman, thank you so much for being with us. >> my pleasure. thank you. two views now on what's happening is a crisis as the president says or whether the wall is the right answer. these are two highly informed assessments with individuals with more direct experience on the subject than most of us have

and yet they disagreed. jorge ramos who have done extensive border and mark morgan does support building a wall. >> jorge, i wonder what's going through your mind that the president may use disaster relief funds to pay for this wall. >> it would be completely absurd. can you imagine the victims of puerto rico and hurricane in texas or florida or the victims of fires and flooding in california paying for a wal wall -- a wall that's typically u useless that we don't need right now and it would be completely ludicrous. it is something that we don't do because someone at some point in his career, he decided to promise a wall that we don't need at this moment. >> mark, i know you support building a wall. do you support using disaster

relief funds to do so? >> this is what i know. after 30 years of federal governmental service. i can tell you what we absolutely have with the southern border is a nasa security and humanitarian crisis. last year 400,000, a little less than 400,000, illegal alien were apprehend apprehended. i think statistics can show that we can double that and look at the number that we apprehended illegal alien. taken into consideration as well. the facts are and this is true. human traffic and routes are alive and well. drug smuggling to the southern border are alive and well. there are bad people that are illegally entering this country every single day. that's real. that crisis has to be addressed. >> i am going to give jorge a chance to respond to that. >> there is no crisis. when we are talking about crisis, we are talking about

something like the war in iraq, 9/11. as you know there are about 700 amount of walls between mexico and the united states. those were created and built after 9/11. that's a real crisis, not what donald trump and his followers are trying to pro momote right . where is the crisis? at this moment we have some of the safest kmucommunities in th country along the border. it fell back to 10.7 millions. we really don't need a wall at this moment. >> mark. >> i don't see a possibility of a crisis. >> jorge ramos and mark marcorg. we'll speak ahead with an air traffic controller having just three bucks left and how do they

make ends meet. later the congressman tried to explain his racist remarks but his gop colleagues are not buying it, here is what steve king says and decide for yourself as "360" continues. it was here. i couldn't catch my breath. it was the last song of the night. it felt like my heart was skipping beats. they said i had afib. what's afib? i knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. i needed answers. my doctor and i chose xarelto® to help keep me protected from a stroke. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. warfarin interferes with at least 6

of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. for afib patients well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®.

every day, visionaries are creating the future. so, every day, we put our latest technology and vast expertise to work. ( ♪ ) the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia, - a potentially serious bacterial lung disease that can disrupt your life for weeks. in severe cases, pneumococcal pneumonia can put you in the hospital. it may take weeks to recover making you miss out on the things you enjoy most. just one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia. it's not a yearly shot. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. don't get prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site,

limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. prevention begins with prevnar 13®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®.

we are talking about the president's wall, the crisis is either is or is not in a larger sense whether a wall or the kind that the president envision would even work. we are back with mark morgan and jorge ramos and also if you will answer the question of the idea of funding the wall through disaster relief funds through mexico or north carolina and texas. >> he's 100% incorrect. when you look at area along the southern border that are doing well, that's due to a multi layer strategy of infrastructure and technology and personnel. that's due to the hardworking men and women of the united states border patrol who are protecting borders every single day. we saw a television the past couple of days where they are walking along the wall and

talking about how tranquil it is. it is tranquil because there is a wall there. if you look at san diego and there are cities in san diego on either sides, those towns are being prosper now. they are prosper because there is a wall there. the crisis comes from, we talk about having an epidemic this country. human trafficking, that's real. that's not manufactured, that's not made up. jorge s- let me finish. you are wrong. that's human trafficking and there are kids and girls being trafficked into this country and forced into sexual exploitation. that's real. you can't say that's not real. if you are do, you are lying and misleading to the american people. >> it is a manufacture crisis. >> go ahead jorge. let me address some of the issues that you mentioned.

the drugs, what you are saying is not true. the vast majority of drugs in this country happens al legal ports of entry and not on the border. that had nothing to do. >> that's a false narrative. >> that's wrong. >> the number of arrests that we have in the last few years are among the lowest in the last 20 years and if you are right, how come out of the nine members of congress who represents the district along the u.s. mexico border, how come not a single one of them support the deal of the wall. where is the crisis? again, i am open to listen to you. >> jorge, i just gave you facts. human trafficking, that's real. that's not a crisis, that's not manufactured. drugs coming into the port of entry, why don't we talk about the staff? jorge, let me finish. what about staffs that we don't

know what's coming into the border? it is not just a crisis between the points of entry. it is a crisis on the southern border. we have a lot of drugs coming into the point of entry and between of the point of entry. that's real and not manufactured and that's leading into the crisis that we have in this united states. that's real. what do you tell the young women and children. what do you tell the young men and women being trafficked in this united states by the drug cartels and sexually exploited. >> let me joump in. mark, the statistic we get from the government itself is that the majority of the drugs being smuggled in are through the legal points of entry. those are government statistic that we cite. just so people know of where the statistics come from. jorge, president trump is not the first president to ask for a funding. both president bush and clinton asked for border fence funding. president obama funded the

maintenance of 700 miles of barriers that already existed. >> you are absolutely right. three u.s. presidents, george senior and bush and all of them approved walls and fences. republicans and democrats have approved walls and fences. how come we don't want donald trump to build his own wall? the reason is very simpl simple -- first, because it is use less and there is not a national emergency like 9/11 when a wall were built and third, it is really important, i think donald trump has created a symbol for many people. the wall is a symbol of racism. many members of congress -- >> that's absolutely false. >> asking for money for a symbol of racism and hate and discrimination. politically for democrats it is simple to say that donald trump is not going to deliver on his signature issue and then promise

something completely different for 2020. those are the reasons why i think right now many members of congress are not going to approve of it. >> has the president made of your argument harder to deliver. >> i don't think so. >> because there is a couple of important factors. jorge, it is a false narrative. anybody who says or talks to the american people that says walls are in e effectiffective. they are lying to the people. look at san diego and el paso which i lived for two years. jorge, let me finish. >> i let you finish. that's false narrative. the county of arizona just came out with a newspaper article this week in 2005, infrastructure technology and personnel to the right level in his area. he saw illegal immigration drop 90% and overall crime of his area dropped dramatically. to your point, you are spot on.

in 2006, secure fence was approved. a bipartisan build that led to 720 miles a fence. jorge, i challenge you go back and listen to the sound byte of a bipartisan senate in congress including presidents from the democratic side of the house that said exactly the same thing as being said why we need this wall. exactly word-for-word was said back then. >> we don't need more wall. >> that's a lie. >> ten seconds. we got to go. >> just give you a statistic. immigrants. >> jorge ramos and mark morgan. we are about to lose your satellite. i thank you both gentlemen for being with us. a nice discussion. >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. where is senate majority mitch mcconnell in all of this? find out ahead. cvs pharmacy.

ed gets copays as low as zero dollars on medicare part d prescriptions. ed gets labels clear as day. and, lily.... lily gets anything she wants. ed knows he could just have us deliver his prescriptions. but what's the fun in that? switch to cvs pharmacy.

let me read you the opening paragraph. it says in the days after president trump fired james com comey, law officials are so concerned of the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he was working on behalf of russia against to america's interests. adam goldman shares the by line,

he joins us by phone. this is an issue of there being a criminal investigation and tonight i think for the first time, correct me if i am wrong your reporting is there is a counter intelligent into whether the president of the united states was a threat to the united states. >> yeah, essentially that's correct. when the fbi started investigating president trump in the days after comey was fired, there were two elements. one was a criminal element and that would be possible obstruction and the other was the sbl jeintelligence of this. i will be people assuming that mueller was looking at whether the president himself had in some way -- the russians nobody that played out exactly what happened but that's what we sought to do with that story. >> what exactly is. >> and the essence of a counter

intelligence, of a threat of national security. typically these investigations are quietly and many, many times they don't lead to criminal charges and the message that the fbi uses to try to understand what an adversary may be highly classified and you don't see them brought out of an article in court. >> why is the idea of a could wanter intelligent investigation into the president of the united states, why would that information be so controversial and why did they work so hard to keep it quiet? >> well, i think they worked really hard to keep it quiet because they want to understand. the way these things are supposed to work, we are not supposed to find out about it that the fbi investigates somebody, maybe they suspect an individual working for russia, they investigate and do it quietly and goes away. just like what they did with carter page years ago in new

york. the idea that the fbi can do the investigation and nobody hears about it and maybe the person is not working for a hostile country. it goes on. in this case, everything became public. >> yes. >> it was much more difficult for the fbi trying to do what they needed to do. but, there are a couple of pushed the fbi over the edge and i think it has been lost on people that the obstruction and possible obstruction related to t firing comey, the object was, the investigation and the russian interference of 2016, that's a national security investigation. >> and so -- >> there were two episodes. how chaotic the period was following the firing of james comey. there were two specific episodes that alarmed some of these security officials and fbi agents in the wake of that. explain what they were. >> obviously the firing of comey

and the investigation of the president. the second half back to that was the next day of the lester holt interview. he said he did it because of russia. the fbi is watching this and they say and telling us why he did it. he did it on behalf of russia. they opened up his multi tiered investigation that has a criminal aspect and an intelligent aspect to it. >> and when the president had the oval office meeting with the russian ambassador where he bragged about firing james comey and calling him a nut job, that was in their mind of vindication for the investigation? >> yes, well, a vindication, they bolster the reason.

then it comes out of that meeting and he says took the pressure off of comey. that itself was -- the people saw it is reactivation of the region opening on the president. >> counter investigation indicates that they were investigating whether the president was a threat, a security and intelligent threat to the united states. finally there are those within the community and you are right about this. >> i want to clarify something. >> go ahead. >> there are investigating. this is what was testified in a hearing. we had some of these testimonies, it is clear that whether the president's actions were correct. >> okay. >> it is not -- i don't think anybody is convinced that the president did this on behalf of russia, prior comey.

but, you know they had the act of firing, the simple act of firing comey. that would consider it. >> is it clear whether the counter investigation were ever wrapped up? >> i don't know if that's the case. they didn't say it in the story. i am sure it is something mueller if he writes a report, it is something that he can explain it. >> adam goldman, if you will stick around with us, i want to bring in dana bash from "usa d today" and on the phone is special agent josh campbell who serves as a special assistant. dana, first to you and this gets to the article of reference at this point. certainly within the president's orbit who says this and other

things represent serious over reach by the fbi. >> potentially and i love to hear josh's responses. he's not only working for the fbi but working for james comey. >> i think what is really an unknown here -- well, a step back. this is very explosive. it is obvious why the fbi did not want anybody to know about this at all. the notion as you were getting with adam of investigating the president of the united states to see if the american president is working for the russians is just, it is just too much to wrap your mind around and having said that, we don't know what happened. we don't know how quickly it wrapped up or if it is wrapped up. and obviously, it is connected to the much larger robert mueller investigation. this is before. it seems as though the fbi started this before robert mueller was appointed by rosenstein. >> mueller took it over and

merged to an extent of the criminal investigation. josh campbell, you were there at the time. first of all expla, explain to verify what you can about the reporting. >> yes, john, obviously i have to be careful of information that i talk about that i knew when i was in the fbi. as you mention working for director comey after he was fired, i continued on as my role as a director. it is kind of hypothetically of the mechanic and the impact of such an investigation. i think first of all, it is important to understand the mechanics. for the fbi to open an investigation of any kind, the threshold is actually quite loyal. you need information or allegation that there is some type of violation of the federal law which is a really low

threshold, you kacan't go on fishing expedition, you have to have concrete to point so. the investigation is just that, you are gathering information of what happened. if you are looking at the impact here, let's take ourselves back in time to that place where you have the fbi director -- the president of the united states who was removing the fbi director, the person who was investigating him which he knew about because comey was on the record and public testimony indicating he was investigating the trump's campaign. this is something that the president knew about and people inside the fbi knew there was this russian investigation and the deputy attorney general themselves and knew that trussi was on the president's mind when he got rid of comey. it is not beyond a possibility that people inside the fbi saying there is a problem here as it relates to national security. that's their job to get through the bottom of that. the one thing that we have to

understand, the fbi when it comes to the president of the united states or any type of effected officials. there is a special category for those types of cases. they're called sensitive investigative matter. what it means and again that's terminology. what it means if we have a certain threshold that involves politician or lawyer or remember clergy or protected class. those requires the highest levels of approval from the department of justice. this is not something that the fbi would open on its own and send over some type of notice. this would require coordination with the department of justice which when you think about it, the one person remaining until this day was rod rosenstein. he's taking a lot of arrows from the president but he stood up to a lot of these threats from if white house and a lot of criticisms. the only person who was still there are still here now would have been there and known about that was the deputy attorney

general. as luyou look at the larger picture, this is a big deal when you think of the president of the united states being under fbi investigation. i don't know if there is any time in our lifetime or indeed the history of the country where federal law enforcement looking down the white house and thought at least a possibility of the action of the president might threaten u.s. national security. >> that's what we have learned in this new york times reporting. the sitting u.s. president and that type of investigation, i got to say this is a strange place to be even after all these months of these investigations. it is a startling sentence to read out loud. >> it is shocking. and as josh just said it is hard to imagine this has happened before. i think for everybody who watch this play out publicly, obviously there was a lot of criticism and a lot going on.

the fbi is expert on this issues. it is very different for us to sit and watch it. this does not look right and it is concerning for the fbi to look at it. we think the president may be a national security threat. he may be working on behalf of a foreign government either wittingly or unwittingly is really explosive to say the least. i am sure that trump defenders are going to say this is just prove that the fbi is out to get him. this is not something that they can do easily because it is the president of the united states. >> i will noted and he does talk about the idea that people have made accusations of over reach, defense in this story is that the fbi, these agencies people, you don't know what we knew at that time. the information we had is not public. you don't know that. dana, the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani is trying to play this down as he does.

he also confesses that he has no insights into the investigation. >> right. he would not know. it is his job as somebody that represents the president to do just that to play it down and suggest as he did in the story that it does not seem anything that came out of it so who cares. well, again that's his job but he does not really know what went on. you noknow the question is yes there are accusations and there will be larger and louder accusations of fbi over reach at the time. but, i think what josh said is really, really not worthy. when it comes to run the fbi investigation, you can do whatever you want -- not whatever you want, the threshold is low. for somebody who was important, you need something more than that and i would guess the president of the united states would be about as tough as it could be and should be to open

this kind of investigation into which tells you that they really did have reasonable doubt or cause to at least look into it. >> just to be clear, josh, what you are telling us that the justice department, the highest level would approve and jeff sessions recused himself so that would have met that rosenstein would have to approve this type of investigation. >> exactly right. having been in the fbi, for example when we have members of congress under investigation, or any type of elected officials, that's something the bureau's policy could coordinate with the justice department. that would be something that the fbi would coordinate and looking ahead john, i think it is important that we understand. it is important to take yourself back to that place in time where you have the fbi concerned according to the reporting of

what the actions of the president may actually, what challenges or threats that present to the nation. they did not know there would be a special counsel investigation. according to reporting as they open this case, they probably looked at themselves and thought this is the vehicle that'll be used and determined whether the president remove the fbi director for purposes of obstruction and if there is any outlining national security threat. the reason why it is important to talk about now because all of that got folded into the robert mueller's case. >> we don't know what he's doing but we can bet that would be one part of that. >> as josh is talking and as we are kind of digesting this information, it makes you realize why rosenstein got the special counsel in the first place if the way josh describes his protocol is accurate and sure it is. that was rosenstein because jeff

sessions recused himself at that time or in the process of. it is more evidence and more of an explanation why rosenstein says okay so this is something we have to separate from because of allegations of retributions from fbi agents because their boss was fired or whatever reasons you got to separate it. >> you can understand why there is a special counsel. >> exactly. >> you can understand why robert mueller was needed. rosenstein is stepping down which made everybody to believe that the mueller investigation investigation has come to a close. it seems to me that we are heading into an eventful period. >> we heard it many times about this being around the corner and getting wrapped up. there is obviously more to come. i just think that we can't

stress enough, what a big story it is frankly. to think about the fact that we generally would make an assumption of the president of the united states that we know which side they are on and we don't have the fbi wondering whether or not they are working a foreign power, like i said knowingly or unknowingly, the reporting says it is just an absolute shocking thing. i think it says a lot about president trump. >> josh, last question we are running out of time. you said actually the bar is fairly low to start asking these types of questions. would it be the action of the president firing james comey and the lester holt's interview that would cause an investigation or other intelligence hiccups, other causes for concern that russia may have some level of influence on the president? >> so it becomes very important for an fbi agent, one of the phrases that they use that you

have to have specific and articulate facts. you can't have some type of hearsay to open up an investigation. you have to articulate what it is. in this case if the agent looks across the horizon and saw all the different threats they were looking at and saw the action of the president and starting to piece it all together. that could have been enough or at least to look into it. it is important to say even though i just mentioned this require the highest level of approval from the department of justice. fbi investigations often wash out and there is no there. a lot of times if you get information about a possible crime that does not pan out, you don't want to negatively you know impact someone's reputation but again we don't know if that's the case here. we can vet that would have been folded into what mueller is

doing. >> josh campbell and dana bash and kirsten powell, thank you so much to help digest this. a big story breaking tonight. next steve king is no stranger to hot water. why his latest episode threatening to sensor the house of representatives and what he says about it today on the house floor? om starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

we can't guarantee, you'll find gold in them therr hills on your vacation. but we can guarantee the best price on this rental cabin. or any accomodation from hotels to yurts. booking.com, booking.yeah why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today.

as the government remains shut down over the immigration debate, one of the loudest anti-immigration voices in congress finds himself in some very hot water over some recent comments. iowa republican congressman steve king wondered aloud to the "new york times" earlier this week why, in his words, and i'm quoting, white nationalists, white supremacists, western civilization, how did that language become offensive? unquote. tim ryan says he is considering offering a formal resolution censuring king for his remarks. for his part, king took to the house floor today and responded. >> i regret the heartburn that has poured forth upon this congress and this country and especially my state and in my congressional district. but the people who know me know i wouldn't have been have to make this statement because they know me. they know my history. they know i lived in the same

place about 1978. they know my life. there's nothing about my family or my history or my neighborhood that would suggest that these allegations could be supported by any activity whatsoever. i reject that ideology. i defend american civilization, which is an essential component of western civilization. >> all right. joining me now is representative eleanor holmes norton of the district of columbia. representative, thanks so much for being with us. i will ask you about steve king in one moment. on the breaking news we heard moments ago, "the new york times" reporting that the fbi back when the president fired james comey opened a counter-intelligence investigation out of concern that his actions were a security threat to the united states. your reaction? >> have we forgotten that for a very long time now, trump has seemed to be at one with the russians. he's been accused of being too close to the russians in the first place. and that's democrats who, of course, have been criticizing him and remember when he stood

beside -- when he took that press conference and indicated that he didn't see that putin had done anything. so, i mean, if you put all of this together, and that is not what got the fbi interested in this, you will see why i'm not surprised. >> all right. again, we're still digesting that report tonight. back to steve king, the congressman from iowa. your reaction to his initial statement. this is someone you've known in the house for a long time. our surprised when he said, "i don't know white supremacist" is an offensive word? >> i was not surprised, because he's had a very long line of this kind of rhetoric and of close association, not only in this country, but in europe, with white nationalists. he's going so far this time that while a censure resolution is almost surely going to be put on the floor of the house, you see

members of his own appeared, -- party. what i think is -- amounts to trying to get him out. he won his election by only 2,500 points. that's because this is not new, because it follows a very long line of white supremacy, white nationalism, perhaps not as overt as this. but always there and always undisguised. so now what you're seeing is, he's got a primary challenger already. he may get another one. you see the top three leaders of the house, scalding criticism of him. so i think what you're seeing is republicans are understanding they're not going to hold onto this seat. the only -- only by three points did >> you're right. >> -- did king retain the seat. so i think they're trying to force him out before democrats take this seat. in a very republican senate. >> would you support a censure

vote? and do you think republicans are doing enough? governor tim scott made a really, really powerful statement today in the op-ed in "the post" condemning these words. >> not only would i support a censure vote, democrats control the house, i think a censure vote would easily pass the house of representatives. >> eleanor holmes norton, thank you so much for being with us, and really appreciate your time tonight on a variety of subjects. let's check in with chris cuomo to see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" in the next hour. >> what we've learned from "the new york times" really falls into what we're getting very deep into on the show tonight. we've had three aspects of the mueller probe come to light in the last few days, and they all worked together. we've learned that the probe is looking at public statements of the president as probative in their criminal case of obstruction of justice. that will be surprising to many people, that the president's public statements may count in that case. that goes along with what "the new york times" just told us now. and the big point here is that we always knew about the

criminal case, the obstruction of justice involving the president, potentially, but not the counterintelligence element. and not that early on they were looking at him. and that creates an urgency and a focus that we didn't know about in the probe in terms of what its ultimate story is. that takes us to the third point. they don't want us to see that story, jb. the lawyers of the president want to look at it first and play with it? no way, not on our watch, we've got to fight that. >> chris cuomo, thanks so much. we'll see you in a few minutes. coming up, 13-year-old jamie floss escapes after being held captive for three months. in remote area of wisconsin. what investigators are saying about the suspect. first, a quick look at a cnn original series premiering this sunday, "american style." >> john kennedy had a style of a kind of wealthy upper class new england person. so was more casual than the sort of typical ruling class person. >> kennedy carried himself with simple style. it was never overthought, it was

very much with ease. >> style matters with jack kennedy. and his style is grace under pressure. he defines cool. >> president kennedy's youth, his sartorial excellence, his great physique were all differentiators, i will say, from prior presidents. he looked fantastic. -we're doing karaoke later, and you're gonna sing.

-jamie, this is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive. -oh, sweetie, please, play for us. -oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ]

with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only with expedia. introducing zero account fees for brokerage accounts. and zero minimums to open an account. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪